• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reuters: Trump catches clinton in electoral college

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Although it hasn't stood the test of time yet, Nate Silver's 538 blog has an incredibly impressive track record in predicting election results since 2008. It does it using weighted poll averaging and it is updated daily as new polls are released.

As of the time of this writing, it still shows Hillary winning. However, if you look at the trajectory, you can clearly see the race is tightening. I think Trump supporters are correct in celebrating this shift. The race has gone from being a total blowout for Clinton to being competitive. It's still an uphill battle for Trump, but there's a significant chance he could win now; it didn't seem there was one even month ago. The trend line clearly shows this to be a tightening of the race and not just a blip.

Even if we head into November 8 with the polls showing it dead even, I think Hillary has the upper hand. Trump's ground game is nearly non-existent while Hillary has highly organized, experienced, and well staffed campaign offices in all of the battleground states. Unless he's clearly ahead in the polls going into the election, I don't imagine a candidate who has a single campaign office in Florida is going to defeat the candidate who has 51 such offices in Florida alone. In a tight race, the ground game is critical and Trump just doesn't have it.
 
Last edited:
Get ready Democrats, President Trump may become reality.
 
CrabCake said:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Although it hasn't stood the test of time yet, Nate Silver's 538 blog has an incredibly impressive track record in predicting election results since 2008. It does it using weighted poll averaging and it is updated daily as new polls are released.

As of the time of this writing, it still shows Hillary winning. However, if you look at the trajectory, you can clearly see the race is tightening. I think Trump supporters are correct in celebrating this shift. The race has gone from being a total blowout for Clinton to being competitive. It's still an uphill battle for Trump, but there's a significant chance he could win now; it didn't seem there was one even month ago. The trend line clearly shows this to be a tightening of the race and not just a blip.

Even if we head into November 8 with the polls showing it dead even, I think Hillary has the upper hand. Trump's ground game is nearly non-existent while Hillary has highly organized, experienced, and well staffed campaign offices in all of the battleground states. Unless he's clearly ahead in the polls going into the election, I don't imagine a candidate who has a single campaign office in Florida is going to defeat the candidate who has 51 such offices in Florida alone. In a tight race, the ground game is critical and Trump just doesn't have it.
Click to expand...

Here is an example of Hillary's "ground game": https://twitter.com/USAforTrump2016/status/777588863812403200/video/1
 
katzgar said:
164 is a smaller number than 200
Click to expand...

Yes. And 242 is a smaller number than 243.

Did my point go WHOOOSH, right over your head?
 
The only point I see is that the title of this thread is incorrect. Your comment is obvious.
 
cpwill said:
View attachment 67207486
Click to expand...

So what?

She could have 150 offices in Florida or any other state. Doesn't mean a thing if they can't, won't or don't do any good.

On the other hand, new Republican registrations in Florida have cut the Democratic lead in half since 2012...without a "ground game" by Trump.

On Election Day in 2012, there were 557,544 more registered Democrats in Florida than Republicans. But President Barack Obama only won the state by 74,309 votes out of more than 8.4 million ballots cast.
This time around, Clinton could have a smaller cushion, because the GOP added about 300,000 more voters than Democrats since November 2012. About half of those Republicans were added in the past year alone, according to the Florida Department of State. The Democratic edge is now about 259,000.

Republicans narrow voter registration gap in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...
 
Mycroft said:
So what?

She could have 150 offices in Florida or any other state. Doesn't mean a thing if they can't, won't or don't do any good.
Click to expand...

:doh

It's worth a full percentage point. Of course, that's in historical elections, when both sides actually try. Who knows what the advantage will be this year. Trump probably has the highest enthusiasm, but in a much smaller portion of his base.


On the other hand, new Republican registrations in Florida have cut the Democratic lead in half since 2012...without a "ground game" by Trump.
Click to expand...

So. IOW. Not only do the Democrats have a natural lead in Florida, but Trump isn't putting any effort into having higher GOP turnout to make up for it, and Hillary is putting effort into having higher DNC turnout.


Brilliant.
 
Last edited:
Ah, Florida. Isn't that where election hanky-panky has gone on more than once in the past? I'd always be concerned about Florida, no matter what any polls say. How can we make sure results are real and interference or cheating doesn't occur there?
 
cpwill said:
:doh

It's worth a full percentage point. Of course, that's in historical elections, when both sides actually try. Who knows what the advantage will be this year. Trump probably has the highest enthusiasm, but in a much smaller portion of his base.




So. IOW. Not only do the Democrats have a natural lead in Florida, but Trump isn't putting any effort into having higher GOP turnout to make up for it, and Hillary is putting effort into having higher DNC turnout.


Brilliant.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. Hillary is "putting effort into having higher DNC turnout"...or, at least spending money to do so...but it's not resulting in increased Democratic registrations.

We'll have to see if she succeeds in actually getting more voters to the polls, though. So far, it seems her ground game isn't doing all that much.

In regards to Trump supporter enthusiasm, I think you are wrong.

Enthusiasm gap looms for Clinton | TheHill
 
Mycroft said:
You miss the point. Hillary is "putting effort into having higher DNC turnout"...or, at least spending money to do so...but it's not resulting in increased Democratic registrations.

We'll have to see if she succeeds in actually getting more voters to the polls, though. So far, it seems her ground game isn't doing all that much.
Click to expand...

Voter Turnout is turnout of Voters, it's boosting the percentage of people who tell pollsters that "they will vote for candidate X" who then actually get the polls and vote for candidate X.

And yeah - we will. An odd election, all the way around. I think "With the exception of the 2016 race" will be a common phrase in political science dissertations for some time to come.

In regards to Trump supporter enthusiasm, I think you are wrong.

Enthusiasm gap looms for Clinton | TheHill
Click to expand...

That's odd, given that your source seems to generally agree with my position.
 
cpwill said:
Voter Turnout is turnout of Voters, it's boosting the percentage of people who tell pollsters that "they will vote for candidate X" who then actually get the polls and vote for candidate X.

And yeah - we will. An odd election, all the way around. I think "With the exception of the 2016 race" will be a common phrase in political science dissertations for some time to come.



That's odd, given that your source seems to generally agree with my position.
Click to expand...

From that article:

A Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 46 percent of Trump backers were “very enthusiastic,” compared with only 33 percent of Clinton supporters. And a New York Times/CBS News poll saw Trump outperforming Clinton by the same metric, 45 percent to 36 percent.
Click to expand...

And you said what? about his base?
 
Mycroft said:
True...untrue...when talking about anything that has to do with polls and the interpretation of them, it really just comes down to who you are listening to.


View attachment 67207472
States of the Nation


View attachment 67207474
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
Click to expand...

What in the hell is up with VT????

On the RCP map its based on 2 polls, 1 being from the beginning of July, the other from september 2nd.

The Rueters map I can't seem to find their supporting data (admittedly, their site makes my computer freeze/lag constantly)

I realize there's probably not a ton of polls there, but the different maps have it as a solid win for different candidates.....
 
shagg said:
What in the hell is up with VT????

On the RCP map its based on 2 polls, 1 being from the beginning of July, the other from september 2nd.

The Rueters map I can't seem to find their supporting data (admittedly, their site makes my computer freeze/lag constantly)

I realize there's probably not a ton of polls there, but the different maps have it as a solid win for different candidates.....
Click to expand...

That's why I tend to not pay much attention to polls and prognostications. Every one of them have their slant and their interpretation.

I'll just wait till the vote.
 
Mycroft said:
You miss the point. Hillary is "putting effort into having higher DNC turnout"...or, at least spending money to do so...but it's not resulting in increased Democratic registrations.

We'll have to see if she succeeds in actually getting more voters to the polls, though. So far, it seems her ground game isn't doing all that much.

In regards to Trump supporter enthusiasm, I think you are wrong.

Enthusiasm gap looms for Clinton | TheHill
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are getting your info. I've seen no indication that there's any difference between Hillary Clinton's ground game and that of candidates in other election cycles.

The news about what's going on in the field offices this election cycle isn't that Clinton isn't doing well; she's doing just as well as any other candidate has before. The news is that Trump is doing terribly. In a recent poll, 92% of Republican insiders in battleground states admitted Clinton was doing better in the ground game. Insiders: Clinton dominates Trump on the ground - POLITICO

Of course, this may not actually mean anything. Trump was outperformed on the ground throughout the entire primary and still managed to dominate. The question is whether that works for a national two party election. If he goes into election week with a lead, I wouldn't worry about this too much, but if he goes in with polls showing anything but a Trump lead, it's probably something to worry about (if you are a Trump supporter).
 
Last edited:
CrabCake said:
I'm not sure where you are getting your info. I've seen no indication that there's any difference between Hillary Clinton's ground game and that of candidates in other election cycles.

The news about what's going on in the field offices this election cycle isn't that Clinton isn't doing well; she's doing just as well as any other candidate has before. The news is that Trump is doing terribly. In a recent poll, 92% of Republican insiders in battleground states admitted Clinton was doing better in the ground game. Insiders: Clinton dominates Trump on the ground - POLITICO

Of course, this may not actually mean anything. Trump was outperformed on the ground throughout the entire primary and still managed to dominate. The question is whether that works for a national two party election.
Click to expand...

My info is from the links I've presented.

I'm not concerned with how well Hillary is doing...compared to previous elections. I've also concurred that Hillary has more of a ground game than Trump.

But the information I've presented is indicating that, for all the money she has spent on her ground game she doesn't have much to show for it...especially compared to Trump who has spent very little. One of the goals of the ground game is to get new registrations and the Republicans are seeing the biggest increases.

Now...we'll see if her ground game gets the vote out come election day, but there's no point talking about that now.
 
Mycroft said:
My info is from the links I've presented.

I'm not concerned with how well Hillary is doing...compared to previous elections. I've also concurred that Hillary has more of a ground game than Trump.

But the information I've presented is indicating that, for all the money she has spent on her ground game she doesn't have much to show for it...especially compared to Trump who has spent very little. One of the goals of the ground game is to get new registrations and the Republicans are seeing the biggest increases.

Now...we'll see if her ground game gets the vote out come election day, but there's no point talking about that now.
Click to expand...

The links you provided don't actually say what you are claiming they say. Did you mean to provide a different link that you forgot to post?
 
CrabCake said:
The links you provided don't actually say what you are claiming they say. Did you mean to provide a different link that you forgot to post?
Click to expand...

I provided exactly the links I intended to present. Perhaps you'd like to explain what you find wrong.
 
CrabCake said:
The links you provided don't actually say what you are claiming they say. Did you mean to provide a different link that you forgot to post?
Click to expand...

I think what Mycroft is saying is that he is tired of repeating himself and repeating the same thing over and over is not going to enable you to understand what he is saying. His meaning is entirely clear. He presented the correct information to bolster his statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom